Read through the back posts of these forums for a full indictment of the rebels' various misdeeds against both the government and civilians.
@david-arthur, on Oct 7 2008, 09:28 PM, said in Confed's or Rebels:
Read through the back posts of these forums for a full indictment of the rebels' various misdeeds against both the government and civilians.
In the Rebel's defense, they are fighting a numerically, technologically, and strategically superior foe. Given that the Confeds are fortified in the core worlds, whilst the Rebels are scattered unevenly around the rim, it seems particularly unlikely that the Rebellion would win a numbers war, so they often resort to subterfuge to even the playing field--even if through ethically questionable means. As for the common argument that the Rebels attack civilians whilst the Confeds don't, thats only half-true; the Rebels target registered Confed transports indiscriminately, whereas the Confeds would have to tear though hundreds of independent "common carriers" to find a shipment (since the Rebellion's official supply lines seem to be so frequently disrupted!).
The Confeds, in turn, are no saints either. They seek dominion over distant worlds whose populations very clearly want nothing to do with them, and constantly send attack fleets to harass them. They manufacture BioWeapons out of Industrial MST toxins, which is hardly ethical, and one of their 'experiments' was so destructive that it killed the entire staff of Astrodyne Outpost during testing. As if that weren't enough, they have a precedent to outright slay supected defecting officers, by exposing them to hard vacuum, ship, crew, and all, rather than capturing them and having them stand trial for treason. Really, its no wonder the Rebellion has sympathizers.
In the end, neither side really counts as the "good guys". A galaxy under the rule of what is now the Rebellion could just as well be as iron-fisted and merciless as the Confederacy that preceded it; or not, its hard to tell. Some members of the Rebellion honestly seem good-natured people who wish to cast off the yoke of an oppressive bureaucracy, others...not so much. The Artemis Group seems intent on making sure that neither side ever really gains a lasting foothold in the war, but whether their meddling to perpetuate the conflict is for everyone's benefit, or their own, nefarious purposes remains unclear.
I'd be more willing to join the Rebels than the Confeds, anyway.
@-visitor-, on Oct 8 2008, 01:40 PM, said in Confed's or Rebels:
... the Rebels target registered Confed transports indiscriminately ...
Using a definition of 'transports' that includes passenger liners.
@-visitor-, on Oct 8 2008, 01:40 PM, said in Confed's or Rebels:
They seek dominion over distant worlds whose populations very clearly want nothing to do with them, and constantly send attack fleets to harass them.
Look at the storylines. On both sides, they involve far more rebel attacks against the Confederation than the reverse. Large parts of the Confederation storyline consist of fending off rebel attacks, and undoing their results. The rebels don't just want 'freedom': they want to destroy the Confederation, which they've declared (based on extremely nebulous charges) to be evil.
@david-arthur, on Oct 8 2008, 08:19 PM, said in Confed's or Rebels:
Using a definition of 'transports' that includes passenger liners.
Thats a simple enough precedent to justify. If you refuse to target luxury liners, then they'll just be loading them up with guns alongside the passengers. Historically, its happened before. Remember the Lusitania? Never-mind that the Germans torpedoed her because they mistook her for a troop transport; it sunk because said torpedo detonated the munitions that were being smuggled aboard her. Given the was history has a tendency to repeat itself, the Rebels probably fear the same thing, ethical implications notwithstanding.
Quote
Look at the story-lines. On both sides, they involve far more rebel attacks against the Confederation than the reverse. Large parts of the Confederation story-line consist of fending off rebel attacks, and undoing their results.
This is more due to the player being called in for "special circumstances" for the Confederates more than anything. You know, when the Navy at large isn't particularly suited to handling an issue? They don't really trust mercenaries, and who can blame them? The Rebels, on the other hand, are almost wholly reliant on mercenaries for many of their operations, and so the player is called on for more offensive actions.
Quote
The rebels don't just want 'freedom': they want to destroy the Confederation, which they've declared (based on extremely nebulous charges) to be evil.
I won't deny it. However, the very fact that such a popular uprising has lasted for so long would seem to infer that their claims have at least some basis in fact (although the propaganda from each side of the fence undoubtedly exaggerates matters a great deal).
As for the Confederacy being "evil", while the Rebels may believe that, it seems more a matter in my opinion that the Confeds are incompetent, corrupt, bureaucratic, and aloof more than actively malicious. And the Rebel's cries of 'oppression' are more likely the result of inadequate representation more than anything (after all, what self-respecting core-worlder would give two cents about what a fringe yokel thinks?). Laws that would be perfectly reasonable on the more prosperous and well-developed core-worlds would probably be interpreted as tyranny on the fringe worlds where they hardly apply. Ignorance, on the behalf of the Confederates for failing to understand the needs of the fringe worlds, and on the behalf of the fringe worlds for failing to understand the actions of the Confederates, is likely the root cause of the war in general.
By this point, the Rebels could very well see the utter destruction of the Confederacy as their only recourse. The Confederates have long since identified the Rebels as a threat, and they don't take dissent lying down. And the Rebels have too much at risk, having vested so much effort and blood into the conflict, to simply lay down arms. The situation is very much "destroy or be destroyed", and, regardless of the views of radicals and moderates alike on both sides, that is the way it is likely to remain.
It seems evident to me that the original intent was for the Rebels to be the good guys. Of course, I don't have anything other than intuition to back up my theory.
As far as the Rebels attacking Confederation liners... well, you should note that because there aren't any Rebel liners, there can't be any Confed military action taken against them. In fact there aren't even any Rebel transports which seems a bit strange to me. Surely they have more ships in their fleet than just combat vessels. As it is any attack rendered by the Rebels against anything other than a Confederation military vessel can be perceived as an attack against innocent civilians. Clearly, the deck is stacked against the Rebels in this regard.
All that said...
The Rebel string engages the player in a bit more 'dirty' combat than the Confed string. Assassinating a member of the Confederation Senate is one of the very first missions offered the player in that string. Attacking and plundering convoys also pops up a lot.
z
@zybrogue, on Oct 8 2008, 11:28 PM, said in Confed's or Rebels:
It seems evident to me that the original intent was for the Rebels to be the good guys. Of course, I don't have anything other than intuition to back up my theory.
I have no doubt that Matt Burch set out intending to create a might-vs-right scenario in the style of Star Wars or the national mythology of the United States. I think the introductory text makes this abundantly clear. I merely question whether the eventual result realised these intentions. Within the actual game, I see far more evidence of damage done by the rebels to the Confederation (notice that the majority of the galaxy's pirates hide behind the rebel perimeter, where they're out of the Navy's reach).
@zybrogue, on Oct 8 2008, 11:28 PM, said in Confed's or Rebels:
The Rebel string engages the player in a bit more 'dirty' combat than the Confed string. Assassinating a member of the Confederation Senate is one of the very first missions offered the player in that string.
Indeed, and this makes their pleas for democracy seem a bit suspect.
I have, however, discussed all of these points on multiple previous occasions, and since my views haven't changed in the past few years, I refer everyone to the previous such thread that are to be found in the archives of this board.
I find the Rebel string more enjoyable.
I do, however, concede DA's point that the Rebels are certainly no saints. On an ideological level, I'd probably have a hard time supporting either faction.
@david-arthur, on Oct 9 2008, 11:29 AM, said in Confed's or Rebels:
Indeed, and this makes their pleas for democracy seem a bit suspect.
Hey, American independents shooting at officers in the American Revolution was considered at the time to be dirty tactics too. We ended up with a democracy.
@mrxak, on Oct 13 2008, 06:35 PM, said in Confed's or Rebels:
Hey, American independents shooting at officers in the American Revolution was considered at the time to be dirty tactics too. We ended up with a democracy.
And look how well that ended up...
I'd assemble a fleet of Confederate Cruisers, upgraded with armor and shield upgrades. All primary weapons on my ship. No rockets or anything. I'd strike fear in the hearts of the rebels by raiding in their space for money, as well as to capture their ships in order to get the previously mentioned fleet, most likely decimating dozens of Confed ships and hundreds of rebels. And that is where I'd join the Rebels.
